From the essence of time, sin and the forgiveness of sin has plagued mankind, it cannot be overemphasized that all men (women inclusive) sin and we all find a remission or pardoning for that which we hold to be sin, but to start this discussion properly, let us first understand what sin is and the concept of sin. Sin from many definitions means 'to violate a moral law' theologians have defined it as 'a transgression of Gods will' another definition puts it 'estrangement from God', the idea of sin and sinning is violating laws or tenets layed down by God through chosen leaders who convey the will and desires of God through his word, so these laws are not manmade laws but laws from God himself, therefore when you sin, you have sinned against God and he alone has the capacity to forgive that which you have committed or omitted as the case maybe, for to say 'you are forgiven' broadly means, ' that which you have done that is regarded as sin, is no longer held against you', and that the forgiver has, in themselves, the capacity and ability to not sin or have never committed or omitted a law to be held accountable to them as sin, to be able to hold the power to forgive another's sin.
The concept of 'confession' therefore believes that 'if you confess your sins, he is just to forgive', this confession should be to whom the sin was committed against to begin with, therefore if Malcom left his sugar on the table and said no one should touch it, and Janet decides to use the sugar, Janet has sinned against Malcom and should confess, not to Andrew but to Malcom, because in this case, it is Malcom who holds the power or capacity to 'forgive' Janet's 'sin' of using his sugar. There is another matter in this small analogy that I would love to raise much later in the discussion, however, I'll stick to the matter at hand, in Malcoms forgiving of Janet's 'sin', he, Malcom, should have never taken someone's sugar without asking after the law of not touching it by the owner was placed, to be able to have in himself the capacity to forgive Janet's sin committed against him, so if he, Malcom, is guilty of such sin in its equal or relatively, he does not hold the ability to forgive Janet because he is equally a sinner in this regard, if however, he goes ahead to grant Janet forgiveness for the sin being also a sinner himself, then Janet is not absolved of her sin and still holds to the guilt of her sin as committed against Malcom.
The second matter I would love to raise as regards the analogy is, if while at the time of instructing and divulging the law, Janet was not present and had no prior knowledge of the law stated, will it then be counted as sin against her for using Malcoms sugar? The case being here in her diffence, that she did not know of the passing of such law, has she then committed sin by reason of omission of the original law that was placed? Is it binding upon her even in her state of ignorance? And who then forgives her sin if it is to be regarded as sin?
These questions deserve an answer, perhaps devinely, perhaps logically, who is to tell, for if we live in glass houses, an alliance with stones is detrimental.
The concept of 'confession' therefore believes that 'if you confess your sins, he is just to forgive', this confession should be to whom the sin was committed against to begin with, therefore if Malcom left his sugar on the table and said no one should touch it, and Janet decides to use the sugar, Janet has sinned against Malcom and should confess, not to Andrew but to Malcom, because in this case, it is Malcom who holds the power or capacity to 'forgive' Janet's 'sin' of using his sugar. There is another matter in this small analogy that I would love to raise much later in the discussion, however, I'll stick to the matter at hand, in Malcoms forgiving of Janet's 'sin', he, Malcom, should have never taken someone's sugar without asking after the law of not touching it by the owner was placed, to be able to have in himself the capacity to forgive Janet's sin committed against him, so if he, Malcom, is guilty of such sin in its equal or relatively, he does not hold the ability to forgive Janet because he is equally a sinner in this regard, if however, he goes ahead to grant Janet forgiveness for the sin being also a sinner himself, then Janet is not absolved of her sin and still holds to the guilt of her sin as committed against Malcom.
The second matter I would love to raise as regards the analogy is, if while at the time of instructing and divulging the law, Janet was not present and had no prior knowledge of the law stated, will it then be counted as sin against her for using Malcoms sugar? The case being here in her diffence, that she did not know of the passing of such law, has she then committed sin by reason of omission of the original law that was placed? Is it binding upon her even in her state of ignorance? And who then forgives her sin if it is to be regarded as sin?
These questions deserve an answer, perhaps devinely, perhaps logically, who is to tell, for if we live in glass houses, an alliance with stones is detrimental.
Comments
Post a Comment